Rental Housing Bill (B29-99): discussion

Meeting report

HOUSING PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
8 September 1999
RENTAL HOUSING BILL (B29-99): DISCUSSION & VOTING

Documents handed out
Proposals by the Democratic Party for the Amendment of certain clauses of the Rental Housing Bill (see below)
Amendments agreed To: Rental Housing Bill (B29-99)
COSATU Submission on Rental Housing Bill
Commission on Gender Equality Submission on Rental Housing Bill

SUMMARY
The committee considered the written submission of the Gender Equality Commission. The Departmental official perused the Cosatu submission. The committee voted on the Bill and the Bill with amendments was adopted by the committee with amendments. The Democratic Party, claiming it lacked a mandate, abstained from voting although they agreed in principle with the Bill.

MINUTES
The chairperson tabled the DP amendment proposal. The first four of the DP amendments were accepted by the committee but the last two were rejected.

The State law advisor agreed with the submission of the DP that the aggrieved party should be given the right to appeal and the right to review. But he said that section 13(13) of the Bill provides that the ruling of the tribunal is deemed to be an order of the magistrate court. Then in terms of the Magistrate Court Act 32 of 1994 the aggrieved party has a right to appeal against the decision of the magistrate and this also applies to the decision of the tribunal. Section 13(13) covers the question of appeal and section 17 covers the right to review.

Mr De Vos (DP): The fact that you specifically included the right to review may cause a problem. It gives an impression that you intentionally left out the right to appeal. I believe that we should include the right to review.

Chairperson: If the right to review has been catered for in the Magistrate Court Act, why should we include it in this Bill.

Mr De Vos (DP): The court will have some doubts about the rights.

Mr Thatcher: Where there is some doubts concerning the individual's rights, the court must give that person the right.

Mr De Vos (DP) I am not satisfied by the argument but I will rest my case.

The committee rejected the last proposal of the DP.

Submission by the Gender Equality Commission
The Director-General commented that they have considered the suggestions by the CGE but they had not made amendments. She said that the CGE proposal had to be considered by the committee and the department would make amendments if the committee instructs them to do so. On the issue of terminology, namely 'lessee' instead of 'tenant' and 'lessor' instead of 'landlord', the department did not have problem with this proposal.

With regard to the issue that the Bill is urban biased, the Director-General said that the Bill is meant to cover the entire country. But the way section 2(1)(ii) is worded may give the impression that it is urban biased. If the committee gave the mandate, amendments could be made to encompass rural developments.

With regard to the sexual harassment issue, the Director-General indicated that it is not a matter which can be dealt with in this piece of legislation.

With regard to human rights organisations, the Director-General said that organisational rights had been included. But the group of the people had to show that they have an interest in the matter before they can be allowed to institute or defend the action.

On the issue of the composition of the tribunal, the Director-General said that it is acceptable to ensure that the MEC consider the gender issue. However the Minister had a problem with prescribing the number of females to be represented on the tribunal. There are other ways of ensuring that the gender issue is considered without prescribing the number.

Questions by the members of the committee
Unidentified MP: It is clear when using the terms "landlord" and "tenant" but one gets confused when using "lessee" and "lessor"
Mr Thatcher: The terms "landlord" and "tenant" are largely used not only in South Africa.
The committee decided that the terms "landlord" and "tenant" be used in this Bill.

Mr Khoza (IFP): The Bill provides for the inspection of the leased property at the end of the lease. What is the position where there is no co-operation between the landlord?
Director-General: It is in the interest of both parties to ensure that they are present during inspection. If one of the parties fails to attend then he does so at his disadvantage.

Mr Thatcher: The definition of the tenant and landlord includes his or her representative. It is the duty of all the parties to have inspection

On the issue of gender balance the committee agreed with the opinion of the Director-General.

The committee agreed that the wording of section 2 may give the impression that the Bill is urban biased. They agreed that the word "inner city" in section 2(1)(ii) be replaced by the following words "in urban, rural and other areas". The committee agreed that the words "urban municipal" in section 2(2)(a) be substituted by the following words "urban and the rural municipal.

Cosatu submission
The committee clerk had received a written submission from Cosatu. The Director-General informed the committee that the issues raised by Cosatu were not different to the issues the committee had already considered.

Voting
Mr Lee (DP) said that the Democratic Party did not have a mandate to vote on the Bill. For that reason they would be forced to abstain from voting.

Mr Montsitsi (ANC) accused the DP of discussing the Bill in bad faith. The DP denied the accusation and insisted that they were given the mandate to submit proposed amendments and not the mandate to vote.

Mr Lee said that in principle he agrees with the Bill.

Mr De Vos (DP) apologised to the committee that they were not going to vote and he said that they had been misled by the programme before them. The chairperson responded that the programme was provisional and the committee had to continue with the Bill.

With the exception of the Democratic Party who abstained from voting the committee members voted in favour of the Bill and the Bill was adopted by the committee.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 1:
Proposals by the Democratic Party for the Amendment of certain clauses of the Rental Housing Bill

1. The following proviso to be added to Section (5)(1); subject to the provisions of the Formalities in Respect of Leases of Land Act No.18 of 1969.

The reason being that the said act makes provision for certain long-term leases to be registered in the Deeds Office against the Title Deed of the relevant land and that such leases must therefore be in writing.

2. The following words in Section 9(1)(a) to be left out [in the opinion of the MEC]

These words gives the MEC a subjective authority and his appointments cannot really be challenged legally, per the administrative law rules re delegated authority.

3. The following words in Section 13(4)(c) [it may consider) be substituted with the words shall be.

Once again a subjective test, which can hardly be challenged in Law, must be replaced by a hard and fast objective rule.

4. Section 13(12)(a) the words [it may consider appropriate] to be substituted by the words as may be just and equitable.

This would make the ruling of absurd cost awards_, subject to review by a Higher Court.

5. Section 17 re Review to be substituted by a section prescribing Appeal. The heading to be changed accordingly and the words [may be brought under review] to be substituted by may be appealed against.
A review does not consider the merits of the original hearing and can only set aside the Tribunals findings on gross irregularities; whereas an Appeal reconsiders the merits and may make findings both in respect of the facts of the matter and/or the legality of the proceedings and findings.

6. The words in Section 13(4)(c) [it may consider] to be deleted and substituted by the word is.

Once again the subjective test is replaced by an objective test.